Göker, Markus

Opinion 131 addresses a Request for an Opinion asking the Judicial Commission to conserve the genus name Proteus Hauser 1885 (Approved Lists 1980) over its earlier homonym, the protozoan genus name Proteus Müller 1786. The Judicial Commission agrees that the later homonym is illegitimate and that the replacement of the prokaryotic name Proteus would be undesirable. It is also concluded that Proteus Müller 1786 is an objectively invalid name under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Judicial Opinions 9, 12 and 130 serve as precedents for the conservation of Proteus Hauser 1885 (Approved Lists 1980) over Proteus Müller 1786. This action is taken here and makes the prokaryotic name Proteus legitimate.

The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) now includes the categories domain and kingdom. For the purpose of the valid publication of their names under the ICNP, we consider here the two known domains, ‘Bacteria’ and ‘Archaea’, as well as a number of taxa suitable for the rank of kingdom, based on previous phylogenetic and taxonomic studies. It is proposed to subdivide the domain Bacteria into the kingdoms Bacillati, Fusobacteriati, Pseudomonadati and Thermotogati. This arrangement reflects contemporary phylogenetic hypotheses as well as previous taxonomic proposals based on cell wall structure, including ‘diderms’ vs. ‘monoderms’, Gracilicutes vs. Firmicutes , ‘Negibacteria’ vs. ‘Unibacteria’, ‘Hydrobacteria’ vs. ‘Terrabacteria’, and ‘Hydrobacterida’ vs. ‘Terrabacterida’. The domain Archaea is proposed to include the kingdoms Methanobacteriati, Nanobdellati and Thermoproteati, reflecting the previous division into ‘ Euryarchaeota ’, ‘DPANN superphylum’ and ‘TACK superphylum’.